Agenda and minutes

Please note this meeting may be filmed or recorded by the Council for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site or by anyone attending the meeting using any communication method.  Members of the public participating in the meeting (e.g. making deputations, asking questions, making oral protests) should be aware that they are likely to be filmed, recorded or reported on.  By entering the ‘meeting room’, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings.

The Chair of the meeting has the discretion to terminate or suspend filming or recording, if in his or her opinion continuation of the filming, recording or reporting would disrupt or prejudice the proceedings, infringe the rights of any individual, or may lead to the breach of a legal obligation by the Council.

The Chair referred to the notice of filming at meetings and this information was noted.

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies had been received from Councillor Adam Small.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of Urgent Business. (Late items will be considered under the agenda item where they appear. New items will be dealt with under item 7 below).

There was no urgent business. 

A member with a disclosable pecuniary interest or a prejudicial interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered:

(i)            must disclose the interest at the start of the meeting or when the interest becomes apparent, and

(ii)          may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter and must withdraw from the meeting room.

A member who discloses at a meeting a disclosable pecuniary interest which is not registered in the Register of Members’ Interests or the subject of a pending notification must notify the Monitoring Officer of the interest within 28 days of the disclosure.

Disclosable pecuniary interests, personal interests and prejudicial interests are defined at Paragraphs 5-7 and Appendix A of the Members’ Code of Conduct

There were no declarations of interest.

To consider any requests received in accordance with Part 4, section B, Paragraph 29 of the Council’s Constitution.

There were none.

This report presents this Committee with the updated TMSS for 2025/26, subject to its scrutiny at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 20 January 2025, and subject to consultation with the lead Cabinet Member for Finance and Corporate Services.

Ms Josephine Lyseight, AD Finance & Deputy Section 151 Officer, Mr Daniel Lynch, Senior Accountant (Pensions & Treasury) and Ms Taryn Eves, Director of Finance & Section 151 Officer, introduced the report.

The meeting heard:

·      A query was raised regarding the figure outlined on Table 3 on page 11 of the agenda papers which stated an estimate raise of new borrowing from 79.9 to 399.9. In response, the meeting heard that it was driven by the capital financing requirements which was driven by the capital programme. The figure of 79.9 was capturing the last quarter of the financial year whereas the 399.9 was for the whole of the following year. The figures were basically one quarter against a whole year. It was both for the general fund and for the HRA.

·      The increase of the new borrowing was to just to cover the capital expenditure that was projected for the coming years. The total was a cumulative total.

·      The Council had applied for exceptional financial support on 13 December 2024, the draft budget report was published for the upcoming Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The report showed that in order to set a balanced budget or to recommend a balanced budget for 2025/26, the exceptional financial support was estimated at £37 million. When the Treasury Management Strategy statement was published for the Audit Committee, the estimate that could be seen in the report was £20 million (in Table 1 of the report). As a local authority, the Council were not currently allowed to borrow or use capital receipts for revenue spend which was a day to-day running cost. The exceptional financial support would, if approved, at the end of February 2024, would give the Council a special permission called a capitalisation direction. The Council’s capital programme within the budget report included the figure of £37 million as exceptional financial support could be seen listed. This was not earmarked around particular services. The Council approached its budget by recognising all of the pressures it was facing particularly around social care, temporary accommodation and across every single service. It was important for the Council to set a budget that it felt was realistic. This would give the Council a budget gap position, then it would later identify any savings. The £37 million was similar to the Council identifying the budget gap that remained after the assumed savings. The figure was an outline of what the Council would need in order to deliver all of the services that it wanted to deliver in Haringey next year and still recognise all the spending pressures. The Council’s income was £37 million short from where it needed to be. The Council may be setting a budget at this stage with an assumed £37 million of exceptional financial support. This did not mean that it needed to use £37 million worth of support. The work that the Council would continue to do into next year would be to reduce the amount that needed to be drawn down. Any increased reliance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Report (appendix 1) to follow.

For those charged with Governance (the Audit Committee) to consider the statutory Annual Report from KPMG, which highlights their findings from the audit of the Council’s statutory accounts, value for money and other relevant information.

Mr Kaycee Ikegwu, Head of Finance (Housing & Chief Accountant) and Mr Tim Cutler, KPMG, introduced the report.

The meeting heard:

·      In relation to the use of agency staff, KPMG highlighted it as a risk they felt it was an area not just from a cost point of view, but from an ethical point of view. Ideally, the Council would have more substantive people in place for cost neutrality. Whilst an individual member of agency staff may be more expensive than a directly employed member of staff, when all the additional costs of employment was taken into consideration, there was not a huge amount of difference. Efficacy was not present as directly employed permanent staff had greater continuity, career ambition and cumulative knowledge. People coming in and out of the organisation on a regular basis meant that knowledge was potentially lost. Although not a significant financial loss, it was a point worth reflecting.

·      A query was raised regarding recommendations made for tracking recommendations going to in future years. In response, the meeting heard that there were two ways this was done. Firstly, they formed part of the annual governance statement. In the next Annual Governance Statement (for 2024/25), each recommendation would need to have an update provided. KPMG would also be looking at progress against any recommendations. Any recommendations KPMG raised this year would be followed up. The recommendations put in the auditor's annual report would be in the public domain, the ones in the ISA 260 report would be public in the sense they were on the agenda papers, but they were not ones that necessarily would be subject to response regarding significant weaknesses within the value for money conclusion. Any that did relate to the significant weaknesses, if not addressed by the time that KPMG concluded its audit for next year, clearly remained a risk and the weaknesses would remain in place for the following year's conclusion.

·      Part of the reason any concerns would be raised was because KPMG’s conclusions should mirror the Council’s own assessment of internal control through the Annual Governance Statement (AGS). As a key plank of internal control, there were things that the Audit Committee should have oversight of and ensure these were being actioned. Issues being flagged as significant weaknesses with significant recommendations matched against them would probably give the Council some impetus to say that unless the issues were actioned, the weaknesses and arrangements would remain as flagged. 

·      The AGS was submitted to the Committee twice a year and it may be useful to have it submitted more often and this would be considered. The AGS was submitted to the Committee in July 2024. An update would usually be brought six months later. 

·      In relation to voids, this was where KPMG had the most debate and challenge as to whether or not it merited the status of significant weakness. KPMG believed it had reached the right conclusion. In the end, it was clearly a risk and one that KPMG spent a lot  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.